Category: books

Categories
books

Of Paradise and Power

This is more like a long political essay rather than a book. The title is kind of innocuous; it’s the subtitle that grabbed me, AMERICA AND EUROPE IN THE NEW WORLD ORDER. I’m going to start near the end of the book with a few quotes from Kagan that I think sum up the main point:

A great philosophical schism has opened within the West, and instead of mutual indifference, mutual antagonism threatens to debilitate both sides of the transatlantic community. Coming at a time when new dangers and crises are proliferating rapidly, this schism could have serious consequences. For Europe and the United States to decouple strategically has been bad enough. But what if the schism over “world order” infects the rest of what we’ve known as the liberal West? Will the West still be the West? (pg 107)

… America, for the first time since World War II, is suffering a crisis of international legitimacy.

Americans will find that they cannot ignore this problem. … (pg 108)

This interests me. I have a strange self-consciousness about the perception of America by other citizens of the globe and I’m trying to make sense of it. Is the perception by the world community that we are too quick to use force and defy international order a fair perception? Does this perception detract from our legitimacy (often-used word by Kagan) as a world power such that it makes it more difficult to gain cooperation from other countries to resolve global problems? Most of all, are we a bad friend to Europe, our long-time ally? Or is Europe a bad friend to us?

I want help understanding this and I want it now! Okay?

Enter 158 pages of foreign policy analysis by Robert Kagan, a Washington Post writer and a Senior Associate for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

This book starts by summarizing the differences between Europe and America. Try this on for size:

Europeans insist they approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don’t come quickly. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasize process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance. (pg 5)

Kagan agrees that this is generalizing, but I don’t think he feels it’s an over-generalization. A few paragraphs later he says, “When it comes to the use of force, most mainstream American Democrats have more in common with Republicans than with Europeans.”

Alright, it’s a generalization, but not far from reality. So Americans and Europeans are different. But why? Is one smarter than the other? What about their geography? One is a collection of many mid-sized nations situated close to each other and two oceans protect the other; could that have something to do with it? Or do each region’s historical conflicts have something to do with it? One has been devastated by multiple world wars on their own soil in the last 100 years, the other didn’t have their borders breached by a foreign enemy for most of that time until the horrific events of 9/11.

Could be, but Kagan breaks it down into even simpler terms.

A man armed only with a knife may decide that a bear prowling the forest is a tolerable danger, inasmuch as the alternative – hunting the bear armed only with a knife – is actually riskier than lying low and hoping the bear never attacks. The same man armed with a rifle, however, will likely make a different calculation of what constitutes a tolerable risk. Why should he risk being mauled to death if he doesn’t have to?

This perfectly normal human psychology has driven a wedge between the United States and Europe. (pg 31)

But is this really “perfectly normal human psychology?” I’m left of Kagan and my first inclination is to answer no, it’s not perfectly normal. But am I giving in to hindsight? Am I just not being truthful with myself? Of course, I need to gain some insight into this.

Nonetheless, there is a huge gap in power and it has resulted in America and Europe wanting to resolve world problems in different ways. For two such large and influential regions to disagree so vehemently just isn’t good for the world. Kagan expands further on this disagreement – why it persists and actually continues to worsen. He gets philosophical and invokes Kant and Hobbes often. It persists, he seems to say, because Europe has no incentive to build any significant military power because they are living in paradise – they have achieved peace on their continent without having to resort to violence because America continues to be the protector of the West. So why change? But America builds guns undeterred, and even views the European method of problem solving as a constraint and doesn’t trust them even when they offer military support:

Even after September 11, when the Europeans offered their very limited military capabilities in the fight in Afghanistan, the United States resisted, fearing that European cooperation was a ruse to tie America down. (pg 102)

So what do we do? Can we ever get on the same page? Kagan offers this up.

…If the United States could move past the anxiety engendered by this inaccurate sense of constraint, it could begin to show more understanding for the sensibilities of others, a little more of the generosity of spirit that characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War. It could pay its respects to multilateralism and the rule of law, and try to build some international political capital for those moments when multilateralism is impossible and unilateral action unavoidable. It could, in short, take more care to show what the founders called a “decent respect for the opinion of mankind.” This was always the wisest policy. And there is certain benefit in it for the United States: Winning the material and moral support of friends and allies, especially in Europe, is unquestionably preferable to acting along in the face of European anxiety and hostility. (pg 102)

But if America is to give in this little bit, Europe must also carry the burden of rethinking their stance. He gets into that. At this point, Kagan still has the 50 plus pages of a new afterward to go subtitled American Power and the Crisis of Legitimacy. I gotta tell you, it was interesting reading, but it’s wearing me out writing about it. In the end, Kagan offers up this warning to Europe:

In their passion for international legal order, they may lose sight of the other liberal principles that have made postmodern Europe what it is today. Europeans thus may succeed in debilitating the United States, but since they have no intention of supplementing American power with their own, the net result will be a diminution of the total amount of power that the liberal democratic world can bring to bear in its defense-and in defense of liberalism itself. (pg 158)

That’s complicated, at least to me. I’m going to get this post up there then reread it later this year, near election time, to see if I can make more sense of this book.

Categories
books

O is for Outlaw

Grafton just has the mystery/crime novel wired in at this point (this point being 1999, when the book was published). Just trust me. Start at “A” and bang through ’em. You may have to give them time, but once you get into them, they never disappoint.

The enjoyment level disparity between a mystery/crime thriller and an international intrigue/espionage thriller has never been greater for me. It seems like so long ago when I used to buy the new Tom Clancy in hardcover the day it came out. Those days are long gone and I’ve really turned my attention the last few years to the crime novel.

I noticed a few newish things happening with main character Kinsey Millhone. First of all, Kinsey’s love for McDonald’s is bordering on an obsession. I think there were three occasions in this book where Kinsey had a QP (Quarter Pounder) with cheese, fries, and a Coke. This is somewhat odd to me because I would think the Santa Theresa (Santa Barbara) dweller would have more of a love for In-n-Out Burger. But keep in mind that this book is set in 1986, so maybe they didn’t have those back then.

Also newish is Kinsey’s interest in weight training. I’m betting that Grafton herself just discovered weights and probably decided to write it into this book. If you look on Grafton’s website you can see from the office photo tour that she has a serious weight room with plenty of machines specifically sized for women. This dynamic of author and main character mimicking one another is really fascinating to me.

Finally, each novel appears to be showing a more profane Kinsey and slightly more graphic violence. Kinsey is freer with the f-bomb and really getting in touch with her edgy side. And (PLOT KILLER) in the end the villain actually gets decapitated in a bizarre incident with front-loader.

This novel has Kinsey working on her own behalf by following up on the shooting of her ex-husband. The mystery is solid and the action is tight. The woman is a master of her craft. A master I tell you.

Categories
books

The River of Doubt

In the pantheon of great American ass-kickers, Theodore Roosevelt floats to the top of the “political figure” category. This 5’8” fireplug of a man supposedly topped out at a solid 200 lbs during his most active days despite being born a sickly child. He had a long history of tackling hardship and defeat by “vigorously pushing his body and mind to endure punishing outdoor adventures” (I think this is a quote).

After he lost the 1912 presidential election, he was a beaten man. So he decided that the best way to combat the blues was to go on a huge, rigorous South American adventure. This, despite the fact that he was over 50 years old and should have been thinking about retiring to his country estate.

Interestingly enough, for you fellow ND fans, one of the primary planners for the trip was a chemistry and physics professor from the University of Notre Dame named Father John Zahm. Father Zahm was an accomplished adventurer/scholar and an acquaintance of Roosevelt’s. However, Father Zahm’s plan for a safe, easy trip on the Amazon and the exploration of a few of the smaller, connecting rivers was quickly squelched by Roosevelt. Roosevelt viewed this as nothing less than a serious, scientific endeavor, and traveling on a slow-moving boat watching the shore go by was not what he had in mind.

This was only the start of friction between Father Zahm and Roosevelt. At one point early on, well before the expedition even reached the mouth of the River of Doubt, Father Zahm expressed his desire to be carried on a chair by the locals through the jungle rather than walking. Roosevelt disagreed strongly and would not allow Father Zahm such a luxury. In fact, it was important for Roosevelt to maintain equality with the native guides and assistants. At one point Roosevelt refused to use a chair unless his Brazilian counterpart also had a chair.

This incident probably played a big part in what followed. Roosevelt and the rest of the leaders of the trip signed a letter mandating that Father Zahm be sent home. Wow, what a blow! I’m reading this book after a 3-9 season and hearing that Notre Dame is responsible for NBC’s bottom feeding TV ratings. Like I needed to hear more negative Notre Dame sentiment. Oh well, the truth hurts, but we move on.

Yes, we move one, like the expedition did sans Father Zahm. But Father Zahm wasn’t the only member that was sent packing. By the time the expedition reached the beginning of the River of Doubt, all the dead weight had been sent on alternative routes and they were down to 22 men:

  • Roosevelt
  • Kermit (Roosevelt’s son, cool guy)
  • George Cherrie (American naturalist)
  • Col. Rondon (Brazilian leader, famous adventurer)
  • Two other Brazilian leaders/naturalists (one a doctor)
  • 16 local assistants (camaradas)

These 22 men were the heartiest and most important of the expedition but what they had before them seemed insurmountable. Their supplies were running low, they were tired, bugs and wild animals were a constant threat, and they were ill equipped. Despite all the money and planning, they showed up at the mouth of the River of Doubt without a damn boat! They had to buy/trade for seven rickety dugout canoes from the Indians. These dugouts weighed 2,500 lbs each and were far from ideal for navigating a twisting river filled with dangerous rapids. I predict death, and lots of it (I’m writing this as I read it, not afterward).

And there was death, only 19 of the 22 men made it out alive. I figured fewer would make it. It’s pretty unbelievable that this many survived based on the hardship they faced. And you don’t really understand the hardship that they dodged until the end of the book – more on that later.

At one point, Roosevelt is so sick with malaria and fatigue that he declares the following to his son and Cherrie from his deathbed…ahh, I mean, hammock:

“Boys, I realize that some of us are not going to finish this journey. Cherrie, I want you and Kermit to go on. You can get out. I will stop here.

You have to respect that. Roosevelt was, for the most part, giving and respectful of everyone throughout the trip and this declaration was completely in character. But Kermit would have nothing to do with it. According to the book:

Standing next to Roosevelt’s prone, sweat-soaked figure in their dim tent beside the River of Doubt, Kermit met his father’s decision to take his own life with the same quiet strength and determination that the elder Roosevelt had so carefully cultivated and admired in him. This time, however, the result would be different. For the first time in his life, Kermit simply refused to honor his father’s wishes. Whatever it took, whatever the cost, he would not leave without Roosevelt.

There was still a lot of river to paddle and rapids to portage. And a lot of unruly camaradas to deal with. Shortly after the incident, the stress gets so great that one particularly unsavory camarada, Julio, kills another for fear of being outed as a thief (stealing food). Despite his weakened state, Roosevelt is livid and actually hurts himself further trying to engage in the hunt for the perpetrator. The tension comes to a boiling point between Rondon and Roosevelt:

…”Julio has to be tracked, arrested and killed,” Roosevelt barked when he saw Rondon. “In Brazil, that is impossible,” Rondon answered. “When someone commits a crime, he is tried, not murdered.” Roosevelt was not convinced. “He who kills must die,” he said. “That’s the way it is in my country.”

Wow, heavy stuff. They find Julio later, on the banks of the river begging for mercy. But they just pass him by. They later return and try to find him, but they can’t. Certainly the Cinta Larga Indians probably feasted on his innards. The Cinta Larga Indians are what I was referring to when I said that the trip dodged a lot of hardship in retrospect. They did not see any Indians on the whole trip, which is unbelievable because the Cinta Larga were thought to be numerous and hostile. It was always assumed by the river travelers that the Cinta Larga were lurking in the woods, but for some reason, they allowed the expedition to pass through their territory without incident (this may be a quote also).

Eventually, the expedition hits some smooth water and the last part of their trip goes smoothly. It was a long haul. They left New York in October of 1913 and got back to New York in May of 1914. Roosevelt died about 5 years later in January of 1919. Kermit never panned out to be much of anything. He appeared to be destined for great things, but it wasn’t in the cards for him.

It’s really a great story. History buffs will certainly like it. But Millard also expands a lot on the history and culture of the Amazon, Brazil, and the rain forest. It’s a wide-ranging read and I really liked it.

Categories
books

The Blade Itself

Whoa, what a great book. This is the debut novel by an author who lives in Chicago named Marcus Sakey. Not sure how I heard about him, but you can read more about him at his website. It’s a crime thriller set in Chicago and the suburbs. The main character grew up in Bridgeport, lives in Wrigleyville, and works in construction for a developer who lives in Winnetka. Not sure why, but it’s just cool reading stuff that takes place in your city.

So there are two guys, Danny and Evan, who grew together and had a relatively lucrative trade in small-time robbery. That is, until one job goes awry, resulting in Evan getting locked up for seven years and Danny escaping without a scratch (thanks to Evan for keeping his pie hole shut). Danny goes on to live a normal life; he has a decent gig in construction, a nice girlfriend, and plenty of time for leisurely walks through the Lincoln Park Zoo. But it doesn’t last long once Evan gets out of jail and looks for some payback from Danny.

It’s a classic story line, but not tired. One half of the crime duo has a conscience and the other is a cold-blooded murderer. One wants out and the other can’t envision a life without crime. Sakey keeps it fresh by exploring Danny’s internal struggle, taking occasional shots at developers and yuppies, and making the villain really, really evil.

The ending was a little fluffy. I’ll be interested to see what others say about it.

I love the crime novel and I loved this book. Evidently, Ben Affleck also liked it because his production company supposedly bought the rights to the book. Hmmm. Sakey has his second book coming out any day now but I will sit tight for a year until comes out in paperback.

Categories
books

Grounds for Golf

This is more than a book about golf architecture, it’s a book about golf in general. Early on, Shackelford captures a trait of the game that is very important to me – the artistry and beauty involved in the field of play. Playing the game allows for a deeper understanding of the artistry because you can actually touch, hear, smell, and experience the work.

Here is how Shackelford puts it:

When you visit a museum and study a Claude Monet painting, it is just you and a security guard and fifteen other tourists trying to enjoy the painting. But say you get that rare moment alone with a masterpiece and you understand what the artist was trying to portray, there is still something that you are unable to experience. You cannot step into the garden that Monet used for his paintings and smell the flowers.

With a golf course you can enjoy the garden from afar and recount memories of playing the course years after you’ve left the grounds, because you were able to step into the landscape and experience it’s architecture.

Shackelford reeled me in and now I’m even a devotee of his blog at geoffshackelford.com. He gets it as far as I’m concerned. They guy posts golf news about four or five times a day on his site.

He goes through all aspects of golf course design in this book and he does it in a very conversational, non-technical, and relaxed style. He breaks it up into 18 manageable holes (chapters), let me talk about a couple.

The Third – Schools of Design

He groups designers into the following categories:

  • The Natural School
  • The Penal School
  • The Strategic School (MacKenzie, Ross, Tillinghast)
  • The Heroic School (Robert Trent Jones)
  • The Freeway School
  • The Framing School

It’s interesting to hear him compare and contrast these design schools. He talks a lot about Pete Dye but never actually classifies Pete in any school. It’s as if Mr. Dye is beyond classification.

The Seventh – The Classic Holes

He goes into four great holes in detail:

  • The Thirteenth at Augusta National
  • The Tenth at Riviera
  • The Road Hole at St. Andrews
  • The Sixteenth at Cypress Point

With each he goes through the strategy, the green complex, the naturalness and artistry of construction, and the playability. I loved the discussion on the Thirteenth at Augusta. That is such an awesome hole and I can’t wait until the 2008 Masters.

It’s a lot of great stuff and if you’re a fan of the game, you should read this book. I haven’t played golf in a few weeks and I won’t play for about another five months, but I can’t wait to put my new eye for design to work.

I do have an issue with Shackelford’s steadfast adoration for all things classic. He’s one of those guys who respects designers that don’t move any dirt. He speaks highly of the classic designers like Ross, MacKenzie, and Tillinghast and also respects current guys like Pete Dye, Tom Doak, and Crenshaw/Coore. He doesn’t speak very highly of Tom Fazio or Rees Jones. His distaste for Tom Fazio is so extensive that he names Fazio’s renovations of Inverness, Merion, and Oak Hill as the Worst Tournament-Influenced Renovations to Great Courses That Should Have Been Left Alone.

Enough already. This love of all things old-school gets tired after awhile. I get sick of hearing how earth moving equipment and club technology are ruining the game. It reminds of baseball fans who complain about the wild card, tennis fans who complain about the lack of serve-and-volley play, or basketball fans who think current players don’t work the ball around. Things change, deal with it.

Hear are some ideas if you don’t like how easy your 6,300 yard Donald Ross course is now that you have a Taylor Made R7 Quad, a hybrid club, perimeter weighted irons, a lob wedge, and a Scotty Cameron putter. Try one of these:

  • Sell your clubs and go back to persimmon woods and blades.
  • Quit the club and join a nice new Nicklaus design with a second tee that runs about 6,600 yards.

Continuing to beat up the old course with all of the new technology while complaining about the state of the game is NOT an option.

Okay, sorry about the rant. I’m still reading your blog Geoff, you go. Great book. I strongly suggest it for avid golfers.

Categories
books

Hawke

It’s been a rough road with fiction lately. The last couple of items were kind of unfulfilling. So I was in the bookstore the other day looking for something cool, something fun, and something with some intelligence. I got in the ballpark with this Ted Bell fellow, but I don’t know if I’ll be back for more anytime soon.

This is the first book for Bell’s character Alex Hawke. Hawke is a Brit adventurer-type who spends most of his time drinking fine wines, traveling the globe on his private yacht, and saving the world from bad guys. He’s a descendant of real pirates so it’s no wonder that he also has a parrot named Sniper that spends a fair amount of time hanging out on his shoulder. Yeah, let’s bring up the Plausibility Continuum.

This is the second book in a row that falls way off the Plausibility Continuum, but I’m not going to beat up Ted Bell. His character Hawke is a little more endearing that Brad Thor’s Scott Harvath.

Let me give you a rundown of the story. I apologize if I sound flip. So Hawke witnesses his parent’s murder at age seven while on a Caribbean boat cruise. The perps were the hermanos de Herrera; three especially surly brothers. Well, fast forward about 30 years to current time where those same three brothers overthrow Castro and take over Cuba, purchase a Russian stealth sub with enough nukes to destroy the world, and plant a biological weapon inside a teddy bear owned by the daughter of the top guy at Guantanamo Bay.

How fitting is it that Hawke not only gets to save the world from these three brothers, but also gets to avenge his parents death? Ummm, very fitting, I guess, in the world of Ted Bell.

It was fun at times, but left me pretty empty. I’m frustrated with the international thriller/terror drama so I don’t know why I keep buying them. I keep thinking I’m going to get a Jason Bourne-style international chase and brawl, but it ain’t happening. Maybe this genre just doesn’t work in writing for me anymore. Maybe I should just rent thriller videos and spend my fictional reading time on mysteries, dramas, satire, and sci-fi. I’m going to think long and hard about this in a few weeks when I do my year end reading review.

Categories
books

Takedown

Trash fiction par excellence, but just a little too far right of the Plausibility Continuum. Surely you realize that I usually don’t have a problem with this because the Lee Child books I read are certainly implausible. The difference is that I’m somewhat committed to Lee Child and his fictional hero Jack Reacher. I started reading Child from book one, but I crashed into the middle of this Brad Thor franchise and it just didn’t work for me.

So al-Qaeda descends on NYC some unspecified number of years after 9/11 and destroys all bridges and tunnels in and out of Manhattan at the start of a beautiful 4th of July weekend. They do so because two of their own are being held captive at some unspecified location in Manhattan and they figure shutting off all manners of ingress or egress will give them ample time to find them.

In this case al-Qaeda has a lot of classified intelligence, but they certainly can’t plan for everything. What they didn’t bank on was special ops guy Scott Harvath (and Department of Homeland Security employee) being in town for some rest and relaxation. Nor did they expect him to be visiting an old special ops buddy of his – who just so happens to be in a psych ward with three other special ops superstars. Oh yeah, one more thing, one of the special ops guys from the psych ward has an arsenal of assault weapons hidden behind the drywall in his apartment, along with plenty of ammo in his freezer. Who woulda’ thunk it?

In yet another wrinkle, the President’s daughter also happens to be in Manhattan for the weekend. Which prompts the President to go on a rant against radical Islamic fundamentalism on national TV.

Fun at times, but manipulative.

Categories
books

Snow

This is the fourth book I’ve read this year that deals, at least in part, with the emotional and psychological toll that the tension between a Muslim state and the West can take on a person. The others were The Kite Runner, Persepolis, and Persepolis 2.

I’m not sure why I’ve read so many books about this lately. I think it helps me frame some similar points of tension here in the US because it takes the clash of liberal/conservative or secular/sacred to the often violent extreme. And the violent extreme is where things certainly went in this book.

This book was written by Orhan Pamuk, a winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Literature. Pamuk was born, raised, and still lives in Istanbul, Turkey. The book was, of course, written in Turkish. Historically, I’ve had to labor through translated works of fiction and this was no different. Much of the wry humor goes over my head and I don’t have big chunks of back-story that would help me understand what’s going on. I stayed with it though and it ended up being rewarding.

It’s about a poet/intellectual named Ka who fled Turkey for political exile in Germany for over a decade and now finds himself in a small, isolated town in Turkey called Kars. I’m still not completely sure why Ka went to Kars. I got the feeling deep down that he was in Kars because he was disgruntled with his so-called secular life in Europe, and this trip to Kars gave him a chance to do some soul-searching. To hear Ka tell it, he says that he went there to write an article about young Muslim women who were committing suicide because they were not allowed to wear head scarves. Many in town say that Ka was there because the most beautiful woman in the world and a former acquaintance of Ka’s, Ipek, was there. Whatever the reason, he rolls into town and immediately the whole town begins to take his measure.

I mean the whole town, and some out-of-towners. It’s difficult to keep track of the people he meets and I spent a lot of time confused. I wasn’t ready for the fantastical nature of all the characters. For example, there’s a strange traveling theatre troop that helps stage a coup in town during a massive snow storm, the editor from the local paper writes the news before it happens, and a group of religious high school boys act as counsel and informer to Ka. These are just a few of the quirky characters. Yes, it’s tough to follow!

As the book dragged on, I started to sort the characters out and the last third of the book became easier to follow. Eventually, Ka falls in love with Ipek and hatches a scheme to get her to marry him and move back to Germany so they can watch American movies and eat sausages at the local cafes. But before he can do that, he has to strike a bargain with the leaders of the coup to stay alive. In return, he must broker an agreement between a terror suspect, his lover’s sister, the temporary military junta, and others. As you might expect, no good comes of this and it ends tragically. Ka does not get the girl and he ends up getting shot a few years later in Frankfort.

Just not a lot of fun for the most part. But there is a lot of highly politicized and relevant conversation about Islam, intellectuals, small towns, Europe, Turkey, God, poetry, love, happiness, and personal fulfillment. It was thought provoking, but the development of the plot and main characters confused me. In fact, my level of confusion and disorientation was on par with my reading of Neuromancer, but I liked this book more.

Categories
books

Persepolis 2

Ah, the short-awaited follow up to the aptly titled prequel Persepolis. I bought both in a two book set earlier this year and, as you’ve read, I really liked the first one a lot.

Young Marjane is now grown-up Marjane. She has certainly lost all of the innocence of youth. The book starts with Marjane attending high school in Austria, where she was sent at the end of the first book. She has a rocky time fitting in. She has bad luck with men, parties a lot, does a lot of drugs, and continues her rebellious ways. She reaches a low point at age 18 and spends two months on the streets of Vienna, basically homeless. It’s at this point that she decides that she needs to go back to her family in Iran.

Then the fun begins. She moves back to Tehran and upon arriving from Vienna, she notes:

After four years living in Vienna, here I am back in Tehran. From the moment I arrived at Mehrabad Airport and caught sight of the first customs agent, I immediately felt the repressive air of my country.

She struggles with her identity…she’s an Iranian living in the west…a westerner in Iran. She didn’t know who the hell she was so she swallowed a bottle of anti-depressants and really hit rock bottom. But she doesn’t die, and eventually cleans up her life. She starts working out and goes back to school. She comes to terms with the country and ends up spending 10 years there. She gets married and she gets divorced. The book ends with her departing for France, where she ends up living and still resides.

So I guess she really never came to terms with the life in Iran. I’m generally confused about how women living in a Muslim state feel about it. Are they angry, sad, happy, content? I think it’s a combination of all of those emotions. I don’t have any idea. Amongst the absurdity of everyday life, Marjane has a love for her country and her family so she gets along. She relates a lot of funny stories that are downright bizarre. For instance, from the book (illustrated in comics so you don’t get the full effect):

These absurd situations were quite frequent. One day, for example, I was supposed to go see my dentist, but classes finished later than expected.Suddenly I heard a voice over the loudspeaker,

“The lady in the blue coat, don’t run!”

“The lady in the blue coat, stop running!”

??

“Hey blue coat, stop running!”

Me?

“Madam, why were you running?”

I’m very late, I was running to catch my bus.

“Yes…but…when you run, your behind makes movements that are…how do you say…obscene!”

“WELL, THEN DON’T LOOK AT MY ASS!”

I yelled so loudly that they didn’t ever arrest me.

Wow, that is bizarre. She lives in France now and I’m interested to get an update. In the book, despite her occasional disagreements with Iran and the people, she never denounces Iran and clearly loves her home country. Here is her Wikipedia link with a few interesting interviews in the external links section.

Categories
books

National Pastime

The subtitle for this book is “How Americans Play Baseball and the Rest of the World Plays Soccer.” The cover has a huge soccer ball with an imprint of the globe on it and a little baseball hanging in its atmosphere. I like that imagery a lot.

I’m a huge sports fan. Inordinately large chunks of my waking hours usually revolve around participating in, reading about, and watching sports. I have time for this because I don’t do any drugs, don’t hang out at bars, don’t watch any TV sitcoms, dramas or reality shows, and don’t play video games. It’s just a values-based decision that I made a long time ago.

I’ve always found soccer very interesting because of the depth of the average soccer fan’s addiction. It’s something that I can’t match and I don’t often find that level of fandom here in the US. I thought I was a sports junkie, but I can’t carry an Arsenal fan’s jock. So one day I saw this book comparing the quintessential American game of baseball to the quintessential world sport of soccer, and I immediately knew I had to read it.

Szymanski and Zimbalist are econ professors and they set out to explain why each sport gained hold with their respective fans. They also compare and contrast the flow of cash in and out of the clubs, athletes, and media outlets in both sports. It’s a fascinating read for a sports junkie. But be warned, it reads like a text book.

Baseball is an unregulated monopoly that captivates the US nightly for about seven months. It’s on every damn night for 200+ days from April to October and it makes a boatload of money. When I say boatload, I mean a lot of coin spread across everybody involved with the sport. It’s not just the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox that are making all of the money; the Kansas City Royals and the Toronto Blue Jays are doing alright themselves. The rules of baseball are set up with the intention of increasing parity because the powers that be think this is a good thing for baseball. I can’t argue, but baseball just doesn’t interest me.

Sure, I will watch the Cubs in the playoffs, but just because I’m a sports fan – just for the drama – just to be able talk about it with other sports fans. I know, it’s a superficial level of fandom. Am I ashamed of this superficiality? Why would I be? I have my sports. I’m deeply involved in golf and college football. I do NOT have any superficiality when it comes to these sports. Hey, I gotta pick my fights.

If I lived in Europe I would be a scary huge fan of soccer. I would be a hoodlum.

The most significant difference between big league American sports and international soccer is this idea of promotion and relegation. Let’s take England for example. So you have the “major league” with the 20 best teams called the Premier League. Then right below that you have another 20 teams in what’s called the First Division. However, the First Division is not the minor league. It’s just the league below that isn’t on TV as much and for the most part isn’t as lucrative as the Premier League. Here’s the kicker – have a seat before I tell you. At the end of the season, the three teams at the top of the First Division get promoted to the Premier League and the three worst teams in the Premier get relegated to the First Division.

This is a big deal, here is what the authors say about it:

Promotion and relegation increases competition and reduces the long-term monopoly power of the big clubs. Relocation threats are not credible under promotion and relegation. Giving up because the season is not going well is not credible under promotion and relegation (unless you want to exit the major leagues). It is a hypercompetitive system in comparison with a closed system, and it shows in the relatively higher profitability and lower frequency of financial failure in the U.S. majors than in the top European soccer leagues.

Soccer is war. You think the White Sox are in a war? I think not. They basically quit playing about two months ago. They wouldn’t have quit if they had the threat of relegation hanging over their heads. Relegation means the loss of millions of dollars along with the loss of a lot of prestige. Instead, the White Sox get rewarded with a first round draft pick and they still get the same share of revenue sharing. The only people that lose are the fans. Nice huh? Where are the socialists? Right here, in American Baseball.

Besides this, there are other things that really make soccer a fan friendly sport. Here’s a little more from the authors:

Soccer has been unbalanced throughout its history, yet it has managed to become the world’s most popular sport, and in most countries where it is played it dominates sporting culture more than, say, baseball does in the United States. This is because soccer has so many other attractive attributes: the national interest, local club loyalty, local rivalry, the different levels of competition (national league, Cup and international club competition), and the excitement of promotion and relegation. Take the example of Tottenham Hotspur, which for most of the past decade has been a mid-table Premier League team with no realistic hope of winning the championship. Of the nineteen home games played in a season, most will be sellouts. Each game has its own special attraction. First, the game played against Arsenal, Tottenham’s traditional London rival, is probably the most important game of the season. Then there are the matches against the leading teams, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, which give the fans a chance to watch famous national and international stars. Then there is the prospect for qualifying for a European competition. While on the top four qualify for the Champions League in the following season, teams ranked up to sixth can qualify for the UEFA Cup, another pan-European competition that is attractive to the clubs. If, in any season, Tottenham does not have a realistic chance of finishing in the top six, then it is certainly in danger of finishing as low as eighteenth, in which case the team is threatened with relegation.

You get the idea. Baseball is so boring that you need to supplement it with football and basketball to get your charge. I guess, in a different way, soccer is so boring that you need to supplement it with international competitions, cup competitions, and pan-Euro club competitions to get your charge.

What do I know? I’m a fan of college football and golf, so none of the big three pro sports really get much of my attention. But if I lived in Europe, I would be a big fan of soccer, I just know it. I also like strong coffee, crumpets, and wearing ascots.